Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (39073)	11/27/2009 2:47:35 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

We Ain't Seen Nothing Yet By Victor Davis Hanson November 26, 2009 When it comes to the problems facing this country, an old slogan comes to mind: "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet." High unemployment, the recession and a terrorist resurgence in Afghanistan are bad enough. But there are a number of problems on the horizon that could dwarf President Obama's first-year trials. Why the pessimism? In short, we are doing nothing to prepare for the crises to come. A global recession has led to low oil prices. Yet in this window of opportunity, America has not decreased its foreign-oil dependence. We are not encouraging domestic exploration. And we are still ambivalent on nuclear power. But as the world economy recovers, oil will probably surge back over $100 a barrel, increasing our oil import tab by 25 percent or more. The Obama administration, though, mostly is obsessed with subsidizing relatively small amounts of wind and solar power. It likely won't be long before angry motorists at the pump are demanding to know why we have not pushed for more development at home of still-plentiful natural gas and oil fields. Meanwhile, other economic bad news may be just around the corner. Today, interest rates on short-term Treasury bills still are less than 1 percent. But they, too, will climb as business picks up and worries over American inflation spread. If we have to pay foreign lenders 5 percent to 7 percent interest on our debt, as in the past, the increased costs will gobble up additional billions from our annual budget. Yet sadly again, we are missing this rare opportunity of low interest to pay off cheaply the trillions that we already owe. Instead, we are borrowing even more! The war on terror is also heating up again. Fairly or not, the Fort Hood massacre sent the message that the United States is more worried about appearing politically correct in matters of diversity than hunting down radical Islamists on its home soil. Those who seek to copy what happened at Fort Hood will be encouraged. And those charged with stopping them discouraged and confused. Such uncertainty was reinforced by the attorney general's optional decision to try the architects of 9/11 in federal courts in New York City. At best, the confessed mass-murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will lecture the United States. At worst, one sympathetic juror could find the monster only 99 percent guilty, and therefore the court might fail to convict him of planning the murders of 3,000 innocent people. After announcing a new strategy of counter-insurgency in March, and appointing Gen. Stanley McChrystal the new supreme commander in Afghanistan, it looks like Obama only now will commit more troops to Afghanistan. That will be a wise decision -- but one coming three months after the generals' request. We were given an unexpected reprieve through the defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq. We can now build on that victory by routing the Taliban in the way the Iraq surge stabilized democracy there. Finally, there is an array of taxes on the horizon -- increased federal income tax rates; promised hikes in health-care surcharge taxes; and even rumors of value-added federal sales taxes. These increases are said to be aimed at the proverbial wealthy. But that could change -- given that the top 5 percent of households already provide 60 percent of the nation's income-tax revenue. And many are already paying 50 percent to 60 percent of their incomes in combined local, state, federal and payroll taxes. Just consider. The price of gas will soon likely increase. The cost of servicing our profligate borrowing will, too. One more terrorist attack like at Fort Hood, or nightly sermons from a grandstanding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or a new Taliban offensive, and the momentum could shift to radical Islam in their decades-long war against the United States. Next year's tax hikes will be real and large -- and no longer just this year's idle talk. As these storm clouds gather, Congress bickers on Saturday nights about borrowing even more money for health-care reform, yet another federal entitlement. If you thought things have been rough so far, hang on, 'cause you ain't seen nothing yet. Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. realclearpolitics.com

To: lorne who wrote (39073)	11/29/2009 10:04:06 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The Nanny Financial State Labor strips workers of financial guidance. NOVEMBER 29, 2009, 7:03 P.M. ET. With very little media or public attention, the Obama Administration recently suspended a Bush-era rule to let employees get financial guidance from the advisers managing their 401(k) investments. The provision was designed to give average investors access to the kind of personal financial advice that is typically a privilege of the wealthy. Instead, they are likely to get no guidance at all. The saga began in 2006 when bipartisan reforms to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act opened the door to greater personal financial services directed to the average investor. In 2008, the Labor Department proposed a rule to let the financial advisers who handle a company's 401(k) programs also provide financial guidance to employees. This means such well-known firms as Fidelity or Vanguard. The new team at Labor has now killed the rule out of supposed concern for conflicts of interest. The claim is that because the advisers who run 401(k) and other retirement programs work with mutual fund companies and brokerages to sell investment products, they can't be trusted to provide investors with impartial advice. According to California Democrat George Miller, the rule would have "opened the door to unscrupulous advisers to make recommendations based on their financial stake and not in the best interest of workers." Labor says it will issue an alternative rule, but we've been down this road before. When the investment guidance was being considered, two proposals were in play. The Bush Administration's plan allowed a company to hire a fund manager, and for the fund manager to provide investment advice as part of a package deal for the firm's employees. The plan had the advantage of being cost effective and easily used, with any potential conflict mitigated by disclosure and other safeguards. At the time, the anti-Wall Street brigade led by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin insisted that advisers would inevitably "hoodwink" consumers into bad investments. They proposed that if companies wished to provide investment advice to their workers they be required to hire independent advisers, whose suggestions would supposedly be pristine and trustworthy. The costs of these outsiders would also be paid by the employer. That might be affordable for huge corporations, but the additional costs are prohibitive to many smaller businesses, which means most workers will end up having to fend for themselves. Mr. Harkin is now back at it, this time as a committee chairman who wants to codify the new Labor language into law. The current Congress has already demonstrated its disdain for markets, but stripping employees of basic financial advice betrays outright hostility to the concept of individuals managing their own retirement investments. online.wsj.com

To: lorne who wrote (39073)	11/30/2009 9:26:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Job-Creating Plan That's Not in Democrats' Playbook NOVEMBER 30, 2009. Democrats who have spent the last two years castigating capitalism for its failures are unlikely to embrace much of Michael Boskin's free market-oriented, "common-sense recipe for more and better jobs" ("An Alternative Stimulus Plan," op-ed, Nov. 18). However, Mr. Boskin's recommendation of a one-year partial payroll tax cut may very well have bipartisan appeal. Most Democrats despise the regressive nature of Social Security and Medicare taxes (everyone pays the same percentage of income, up to a maximum wage base of $106,800 for Social Security) and any cut in payroll tax rates would be welcome. The Democratic end game then would be to make the tax cut permanent for lower-income workers, while replacing the lost revenue with tax surcharges on higher-income earners and with removal of the wage base tax cap. Sen. Harry Reid has floated the idea of adding a progressive feature to the Medicare tax, assessing a 1% surcharge on higher incomes to help pay for the Democratic health-care bill. A temporary payroll tax reduction, along with several other ideas set forth by Mr. Boskin (e.g., a post-crisis government retrenchment plan, wind down of TARP, delay or abandonment of energy and health-care legislation, etc.), would help stimulate private-sector job creation, but that package of reforms is not in the Democratic playbook. If the payroll tax reduction is the sole economic stimulant, it'll be far more effective than another round of government stimulus spending; however, it'll also nudge the door open for long-term, detrimental changes in entitlement tax policies. Another short-term stimulant that has the potential to morph into a long-term retardant may not be advisable, even if it's the most rational and effective alternative for producing immediate economic benefits. Paul Roberts Jacksonville, Fla. I believe Mr. Boskin's proposal has great merit but can be improved by making it deficit neutral over the longer term. Why not pay for the proposal by coupling it with a reduction in future Social Security benefits? This could take the form of either reduced cost-of-living increases for a few consecutive years or a gradual increase in the retirement age. After all, if one reduces contributions to any other savings plan for a short period of time, he can expect either smaller future withdrawals or a later age before making scheduled withdrawals. Furthermore, this balanced approach will provide a strong signal to credit markets of our nation's fiscal resolve, hopefully resulting in a stronger currency, less inflationary pressure and lower long term interest rates. Perhaps the short-term cost could be financed by the Fed with a quantitative easing program. Robert J Mangialardi Nashville online.wsj.com